Apple sometime in the next 24 hours will release Sling Media's highly anticipated SlingPlayer application for the iPhone onto its App Store but the software will arrive without 3G wireless support, AppleInsider has been able to confirm.

Formally announced at January's Macworld Expo, the SlingPlayer Mobile application promised to allow iPhone users to stream live television over WiFi or 3G wireless networks by tapping into home TV setups equipped with a Slingbox.*A built-in remote control function would reportedly allow for channel surfing and DVR setup.

Sling Media submitted the application to the App Store nearly six weeks ago but it has thus far failed to see approval amid rumors that AT&T had asked Apple to deny the software in its original form because the carrier was concerned about the app's potential to saturate its 3G network.

Those rumors appear to have been true. AppleInsider spoke to SlingMedia on Tuesday and confirmed that Apple will push the application onto the App Store sometime between 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 am eastern time tomorrow. However, it won't be the version of the application originally submitted with support for 3G and EDGE streaming.

Instead, the version Apple approved is WiFi-only. It will sell for $29.99 in the US and Canada, and 17.99 British pounds overseas. Officially, the application will support the SlingBox PRO, SOLO, and PRO-HD. Legacy Slingboxes, which include the Classic, AV, and TUNER, will also work with the app but Sling Media won't provide any service for technical problems with these products, including problems caused by updates to SlingPlayer Mobile software, Slingbox hardware, or iPhone firmware.

Sling Media's concession to release its iPhone app as WiFi-only is surprising given that a version of SlingPlayer runs on several other AT&T devices over 3G like the BlackBerry Bold. With a $30 price tag and a WiFi-only limitation, it will be interesting to see how well the application fares in its first week on the App Store, especially since its lack of wireless network access is likely to curb its appeal, forcing users to find a hotspot before streaming video.

Some have theorized that AT&T's motives for asking Apple to deny a 3G capable version of the application may be more closely tied to the carrier's plan to launch a similar 3G service than any potential concerns over network saturation. The AT&T service would reportedly allow iPhone users to steer video recorders for its U-verse digital TV offering from their handsets.

AppleInsider has been testing SlingPlayer for the iPhone for the past several weeks and will publish a full review shortly after the application becomes available.

If there were 30 million pocket PCs with EVDO that ATT thought would use Sling, they would outlaw that as well. I'm OK with it - it will prevent this app from saturating the network and hurting my (and the other 90% of users who don't use sling) service.

That said, it seems like an awesome thing and I'd now consider getting a slingbox.

I've been eagerly anticipating the SlingPlayer app for my iPhone ever since I upgraded from a Palm Treo (which had slingplayer) - I LOVE my Slingbox!

Making it "WiFi only" has killed my purchase of the app. At that point, it's not worth it because I'd have to find a hotspot, pay the fee (if it's not free) JUST to watch TV remotely? It makes more sense (to me) now just to use my laptop when I'm traveling and watch from my room. So that means no airport Sling watching, no "riding in the car" sling watching ...

I'm a little annoyed at AT&T's decision here - it totally KILLED this sale, and I think it will mean that SlingMedia will take a huge hit on the Dev costs since I believe that the sales drop will cause them to not recoup nearly their investment.

No comments about the price of this? $30 seems very high for software that supports a single vendor's hardware product. I would have expected $10 or $5. It reminds me of the extra cost required to use a TiVo with a Mac, but in that case the software is provided by a third party (Roxio) rather than TiVo. The fact that the software exists makes TiVo (and Slingbox) more attractive. The fact that the software is fairly expensive makes the device less attractive.

Is it just me, or does this app have trouble connecting in the demo video? If so that speaks volumes about the bandwidth issues selfish apps like SlingPlayer create.

Personally, although I was born without the sports and violence gene, I can understand that people may want to watch sporting events on the road, but to bring the network to it's knees because a few people want to watch a baseball game seems like a bad choice.

In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...

No comments about the price of this? $30 seems very high for software that supports a single vendor's hardware product. I would have expected $10 or $5. It reminds me of the extra cost required to use a TiVo with a Mac, but in that case the software is provided by a third party (Roxio) rather than TiVo. The fact that the software exists makes TiVo (and Slingbox) more attractive. The fact that the software is fairly expensive makes the device less attractive.

They probably have to raise the price for all the sales they are going to lose now that it is WIFI only. I for one have no longer any interest in getting a slingbox or the iphone app.

You already know the answer you just want to complain about something.

Pocket PC has no web marketshare and does not have the same problems as the iPhone.

There are other devices that offer it. Combined, those devices have a much larger market share than the iPhone. Windows Mobile, Palm, Symbian, and Blackberry offer network streaming, not a crippled Wi-Fi only. Not every iPhone owner has a Slingbox anyway. So who cares if a small percentage of Sling owners want to use the network. We pay for it. Just like we paid for our iPhone and our AT&T service.

Don't give me this "the network can't handle it" bs. Don't believe the excuses. Apple and AT&T have another option for you to watch their Media, and Sling Media is not part of the equation. Unfortunately it will be another year or two before Apple offers streaming media to your iPhone. When they do, it will be extra (write quote down in your diary and refer back to it when I'm right).

I think this sends a pretty strong message to App developers. You either create novelty apps or you create nothing. Any app that actually has substance is usually rejected. Look at the current apps... games, social networking, and fart machines. Even the BABY SHAKER APP saw the light of day.

They probably have to raise the price for all the sales they are going to lose now that it is WIFI only. I for one have no longer any interest in getting a slingbox or the iphone app.

Can't WAIT for Apple to have another network provider besides AT&T.

I can't agree more with you, although they charge a significant amount for all of their mobile versions of slingplayer.

Why would I buy this NOW when it's only offered via wifi?

I get free wifi at home, work, and Starbucks.

I have a TV at home - don't need slingplayer
I have a Computer at work - don't need to watch TV at work
That leaves me with Starbucks. FINALLY I CAN WATCH TV IN STARBUCKS!!! Thank you Apple! </sarcasm>

let me count the ways. Anyone who believes that poppycock about "network saturation" is completely delusional. There are a lot of streaming apps already. Hello, youtube videos? Is that a problem? How about Simplify streaming your iTunes to the iPhone? Pandora radio? Hell, any streaming radio? This IS AT&T we are talking about here. It is not a company generally associated with fair competition nor consumer's best interests. It still irritates me that AT&T bought Cingular.

I'd like to know exactly how many iPhone owners even have a SlingBox? What are the user viewing patterns of Treo owners on AT&T? It's not like I see many of them watching TV on their Treo in public. I'd also like to know how many would use it on a frequent basis out and about? I mean all the places you'd watch TV already have one (ie a sports bar or health club)? If you are going to even attempt to be a slacker and watch it at work, wouldn't you just use your computer? The only reason I wanted to have this application is so that I could watch other sporting events while I'm at another one. Or at a party where I couldn't tune into a sports channel I have at home. But TV programs that aren't live? This is why TIVO/DVRs were invented (sure you can TIVO sports events, and I do, but inevitability either your friend or some sports crawler is going to spoil what the final score was).

This stinks and is another reason to despise AT&T. Of course Verizon would probably do something similar in that they neuter all of their devices to get you to pay for their "service". ISPs and cell providers and the "pay for content" model is getting old.

There are other devices that offer it. Combined, those devices have a much larger market share than the iPhone. Windows Mobile, Palm, Symbian, and Blackberry offer network streaming, not a crippled Wi-Fi only.

This is misleading. The fact is that the numbers of people that use slingbox on those networks is very small at the moment. That's a completely different thing than putting a much easier to use app in a prominent role on the most popular media device. While PocketPC's and so forth are *capable* of doing all kinds of things, the fact remains that people don't use them for those things, whereas the iPHone has very high use rates for all it's internet functions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by donlphi

... Don't give me this "the network can't handle it" bs. ...

Well you *say* this, but then you don't offer up any evidence that the assumption is wrong. There is on the other hand a lot of evidence to suggest that AT&T's network might have trouble handling this kind of traffic in large numbers. The only places in the world that I know of wherein this kind of heavy media traffic is common have completely different network set-ups than the USA does, using mostly different technology.

In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...

let me count the ways. Anyone who believes that poppycock about "network saturation" is completely delusional. There are a lot of streaming apps already. Hello, youtube videos? Is that a problem? How about Simplify streaming your iTunes to the iPhone? Pandora radio? Hell, any streaming radio? This IS AT&T we are talking about here. It is not a company generally associated with fair competition nor consumer's best interests. It still irritates me that AT&T bought Cingular.

I'd like to know exactly how many iPhone owners even have a SlingBox? What are the user viewing patterns of Treo owners on AT&T? It's not like I see many of them watching TV on their Treo in public. I'd also like to know how many would use it on a frequent basis out and about? I mean all the places you'd watch TV already have one (ie a sports bar or health club)? If you are going to even attempt to be a slacker and watch it at work, wouldn't you just use your computer? The only reason I wanted to have this application is so that I could watch other sporting events while I'm at another one. Or at a party where I couldn't tune into a sports channel I have at home. But TV programs that aren't live? This is why TIVO/DVRs were invented (sure you can TIVO sports events, and I do, but inevitability either your friend or some sports crawler is going to spoil what the final score was).

This stinks and is another reason to despise AT&T. Of course Verizon would probably do something similar in that they neuter all of their devices to get you to pay for their "service". ISPs and cell providers and the "pay for content" model is getting old.

Arrrrrrrrrrggggggggggg!

easy choice then

VZ charges you $20 a month or so on top of a data plan for Get it Now so you can watch TV on your phone. AT&T doesn't and limits your streaming.

would you be happier paying $20 a month more to AT&T for a data plan?

or just buy the TV shows on Itunes limiting yourself to $20 a month to make pretend you're on verizon

This is misleading. The fact is that the numbers of people that use slingbox on those networks is very small at the moment. That's a completely different thing than putting a much easier to use app in a prominent role on the most popular media device. While PocketPC's and so forth are *capable* of doing all kinds of things, the fact remains that people don't use them for those things, whereas the iPHone has very high use rates for all it's internet functions.

Well you *say* this, but then you don't offer up any evidence that the assumption is wrong. There is on the other hand a lot of evidence to suggest that AT&T's network might have trouble handling this kind of traffic in large numbers. The only places in the world that I know of wherein this kind of heavy media traffic is common have completely different network set-ups than the USA does, using mostly different technology.

Using Slingbox on Windows Mobile is not incredibly hard to use. There are far more Windows Mobile, Palm, Symbian, and Blackberry combined than the iPhone has. How long do you think it will take for Android to have it over T-Mobile? Android has as high a usage rate as the iPhone. There is simply no guarantee that even 51% of iPhone users in the U.S. would have this app especially when you have to pay $150 for a Slingbox. Skype, which has been downloaded a lot of times, is still only on 25% of all iPhones. Not to mention there would not be constant usage of the Slingbox app because of battery issues.

AT&T network may be strained but this is their fault. Verizon is constantly upgrading their network. They are the ones who bought up the large chunk of spectrum that was available last year. Hell, they will even introduce LTE at least a year before AT&T. If you can't even have good coverage in NYC, then your coverage sucks everywhere. If AT&T invested in their network instead of pocketing the cash, it wouldn't be a problem.

Looks like I will not be wasting $30 on this piece of crap software. What is the point of using this program ONLY on WIFI? Use your laptop with a much bigger screen if you want WIFI when you sitting in Starbucks (cause I know the yuppies of Starbucks will have them). The point of a cellphone is the mobility it offers. Sling should not even release this software for the iPhone and give Apple the 30% of software profit. Sling should just bring there player to Cydia where they will get the full $30 profit and a lot more revenue I have both the iPhone and the Blackberry Bold. I use my slingbox every single day from the Blackberry Bold on 3G. I will not switch back to the iPhone now.

Let's just hope the Dev world will work there magic and figure out a work around. Let's go Jailbreaking and DEV team!!

I think there are different usage models at work here. YouTube is mostly two to five minute clips. I think with Sling, you expect to use it for half an hour at a time.

Although you have to agree that there is probably 100x the user base in comparison. Meaning for every one slingbox and iphone owner (potentially--since it can't be done) using the 3G network, there are at least 100 people downloading youtube videos. Plus the youtube app is FREE, and if you think about it more conducive to watching when you are on the road (meaning 2-5 minute slices, opposed to being in one place for at least 1/2 hour). The Slingplayer app is $30. The price tag would limit the amount of people right off the bat. So three things have to occur for someone to actually use the Slingplayer on the iPhone. A) you obviously have to have an iPhone. B) You need a Slingbox Pro ($240 Amazon) and C) Pay $30 for for the Slingplayer app. Not like there are going to be a lot of people buying a Slingbox because they can watch TV on the iPhone. The barrier to entry is $270+ if you have the iPhone and $470-$570+ ($199-$299) if you don't have any of the above.

AT&T network may be strained but this is their fault. Verizon is constantly upgrading their network. They are the ones who bought up the large chunk of spectrum that was available last year. Hell, they will even introduce LTE at least a year before AT&T. If you can't even have good coverage in NYC, then your coverage sucks everywhere. If AT&T invested in their network instead of pocketing the cash, it wouldn't be a problem.

Before you jump down on AT&T you might want to know that they spent $15 billion dollars upgrading their network in 2008. And Verizon will be introducing LTE simply because they have a dying CMDA technology. There is no future for VZ on CDMA so they have to get to LTE.

Before you jump down on AT&T you might want to know that they spent $15 billion dollars upgrading their network in 2008. And Verizon will be introducing LTE simply because they have a dying CMDA technology. There is no future for VZ on CDMA so they have to get to LTE.

It's not dying that hard considering they have a far better network than AT&T. AT&T will also have to convert to LTE anyway which makes that point moot. I really don't care how much money they spent last year for their network. I'm living here in NYC and coverage has always been the same: lousy. All congressman in Washington have to use Verizon because it is the only carrier that would pick up a signal inside the Capitol. There was a music fair in April (Coachella) and AT&T sponsored it. At their own sponsored event, you could not get coverage. LOL. If you have trouble with reception in at least two of the five major cities in this country, your network sucks.

AT&T would have lost customers this quarter if not solely for the iPhone. There is a reason for this.

They are dozens and dozens, those small guys who've been trying to broadcast for iPhones since years now. They all are caged in wifi.
It's not at all interesting anymore. Mobile TV over 3G, which can be watched everywhere, in offices, in restaurants, in cars (by passengers), is here already.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Using Slingbox on Windows Mobile is not incredibly hard to use. There are far more Windows Mobile, Palm, Symbian, and Blackberry combined than the iPhone has. How long do you think it will take for Android to have it over T-Mobile? Android has as high a usage rate as the iPhone. There is simply no guarantee that even 51% of iPhone users in the U.S. would have this app especially when you have to pay $150 for a Slingbox. Skype, which has been downloaded a lot of times, is still only on 25% of all iPhones. Not to mention there would not be constant usage of the Slingbox app because of battery issues.

AT&T network may be strained but this is their fault. Verizon is constantly upgrading their network. They are the ones who bought up the large chunk of spectrum that was available last year. Hell, they will even introduce LTE at least a year before AT&T. If you can't even have good coverage in NYC, then your coverage sucks everywhere. If AT&T invested in their network instead of pocketing the cash, it wouldn't be a problem.

All very interesting but it still doesn't address the fact that the amount and duration of the data transfer will be higher than any YouTube access (by far), and the number of people using the Slingbox player, and the associated network traffic, could be expected to be substantial if it is made available on the iPhone. One of the most sensible possible reasons to limit the player to WiFi is to try and determine usage patterns before it's let loose on 3G.

It's also worth noting that the Slingbox player is really a poor way to go about enabling the functionality it sells. It is a selfish app that attempts to get around the restrictions on copyright and broadcast of network television, by time shifting the rights you originally purchased when you got cable. The *real* solution to this problem, is broadcasting over 3G, not streaming or copying time shifted media files that are all individual to each user. Even so, countries where TV is broadcast over the phones have a hard time of it from what I've heard.

I am thinking that this is good news, despite all the (so-called) "loyal" sling-boxers who are rudely threatening to dump their beloved company and player over what they see as an unimaginable slight to their dignity, when in fact it's just a tiny bump in the road. The kind of thing Slingbox does is very bleeding edge, to get all hot under the collar about the fact that it isn't perfectly available to you at all times, on all devices and "f*ck everyone else" (a paraphrasing of my general understanding of the tone of slingboxers comments here), is a bit much IMO. People need to calm down, and accept that the whole world won't bend over backwards for their TV watching habits.

Everyone will be able to watch TV on your phone in Starbucks soon enough, people need to chill a bit.

I detect the same kind of ranting, rabid voices behind this "outrage" as those that are always complaining about AT&T's network. Now, AT&T is no saint of a company, but it hardly makes sense to complain that the network goes down all the time and yet simultaneously complain that your favourite bandwidth hogging behemoth is not being allowed on the network.

In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...

I think there are different usage models at work here. YouTube is mostly two to five minute clips. I think with Sling, you expect to use it for half an hour at a time.

What Sling wanted from the beginning, i.e. TV streaming over 3G, and even EDGE, has been by now perfectly proven to be feasible as well. They stream in acceptable quality over 2.9G, over EDGE (ok, latter - in somewhat worse quality). NP.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

this is stupid plain and simple.. what about carriers outside of the US who dont care about saturation of networks.. why does att have to be the one who calls the shots on this.. if there blocking it simply beacuse there coming out with a similar service.. then thats pure anti competition..

i was planning on buying a slingbox, if the app worked over 3g.. theres no point if it doesnt work on 3G

if i can log in via WIFI.. then i would just use my laptop, or i would be around a computer. in which case i could just watch with the slings own desktop application..

Att has once again crapped on a developer who had a usefull app just beacuse of their own stupid nature..

what about the blackberry.. it has a sling app.. over 3g.. apple should just pull out some balls, and tell ATT where they can go.. im sure someone else will pick up the iphone..

All very interesting but it still doesn't address the fact that the amount and duration of the data transfer will be higher than any YouTube access (by far), and the number of people using the Slingbox player, and the associated network traffic, could be expected to be substantial if it is made available on the iPhone. One of the most sensible possible reasons to limit the player to WiFi is to try and determine usage patterns before it's let loose on 3G.

C'mon do you really believe that AT&T is going to measure their usage patterns to determine if they will allow it on 3G? Thery're done with it. Game over for slingbox & 3G. AT&T even changed their TOS primarily because of Slingbox changed it back because of complaints. Do you know what they did? They snuck the changes back in two weeks later. That's AT&T. How substantial can it be? Most people don't watch hours of video on the iPhone. YouTube would kill the Slingbox in tems of usage (a free app btw). To even get to use a Slingbox you have to pay $150 just for the Slingbox and $30 for the app. Most App Store buyers don't purchase an app above $7 much less $30. BTW, I paid for that data they charge me for. Phone companies already jack up the price on coverage by separating cell form data when they are in fact the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

It's also worth noting that the Slingbox player is really a poor way to go about enabling the functionality it sells. It is a selfish app that attempts to get around the restrictions on copyright and broadcast of network television, by time shifting the rights you originally purchased when you got cable. The *real* solution to this problem, is broadcasting over 3G, not streaming or copying time shifted media files that are all individual to each user. Even so, countries where TV is broadcast over the phones have a hard time of it from what I've heard.

I can't believe you're bringing this up. I pay $220/month for my cable. Am I somehow cheating the content owners by watching their show? They still get my Nielsen rating because Slingbox changes the channel on the cable box.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

I am thinking that this is good news, despite all the (so-called) "loyal" sling-boxers who are rudely threatening to dump their beloved company and player over what they see as an unimaginable slight to their dignity, when in fact it's just a tiny bump in the road. The kind of thing Slingbox does is very bleeding edge, to get all hot under the collar about the fact that it isn't perfectly available to you at all times, on all devices and "f*ck everyone else" (a paraphrasing of my general understanding of the tone of slingboxers comments here), is a bit much IMO. People need to calm down, and accept that the whole world won't bend over backwards for their TV watching habits.

I'm not some slingbox enthusiast. I don't hang out at slingcommunity. How is streaming videos "f***ing everybody else"? So you're saying that's it's not OK to do things when you want to if technology can support it. That is the whole point of technology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

Everyone will be able to watch TV on your phone in Starbucks soon enough, people need to chill a bit.

How so? So you're telling me that I have to buy a cup of coffee to watch TV or use AT&T's crappy U-Verse? So I shouldn't want to do things my way but AT&T's way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

I detect the same kind of ranting, rabid voices behind this "outrage" as those that are always complaining about AT&T's network. Now, AT&T is no saint of a company, but it hardly makes sense to complain that the network goes down all the time and yet simultaneously complain that your favourite bandwidth hogging behemoth is not being allowed on the network.

That's right. Because when you sum it up with AT&T:
-lousy coverage
-dropped calls
-no Skype over 3G
-no Slingbox over 3g
-at least $100/month

EDIT: BTW, YouTube is also making deals for movies and TV Shows. They already have a few. Are they going to block that too? Also, I guess the writing is on the wall for a Hulu app.

C'mon do you really believe that AT&T is going to measure their usage patterns to determine if they will allow it on 3G? Thery're done with it. Game over for slingbox & 3G. AT&T even changed their TOS primarily because of Slingbox. ...

I get that your really mad about this, and none of the comments I made were directed at you in particular, just the general tone of slingbox supporters on this thread/site. So when I said that they were giving a big "f-You" to the rest of us on the network it was a general (but true) comment, not a specific stab at you.

It's also possible that slingboxers will get 3G access after iPhone OS 3.0 comes out which has better streaming video APIs or something I'm told. Or that, as I implied, AT&T might just be taking a cautious approach and testing the waters before allowing it to proceed. Despite what you say above, all cell providers test their usage patterns regularly for things like this, and why wouldn't they?

I just think people are freaking out over not much here. Slingbox went from zero availability to availability on Wi-FI. That's good, not bad.

People just like to complain IMO. They complain about AT&T when it's good or when it's bad, and constantly assume nefarious and illicit activity from Apple, Slingbox, AT&T or anyone else on pretty much zero evidence. There are even people complaining about the $30 price, when they already know that Slingbox prices all it's mobile clients at $30.

These attitudes are disingenuous and childish, and personally I just don't agree (that this is some huge issue or conspiracy or whatever.) All I see is two companies going very slowly and carefully ahead with their plans in a dull and plodding manner. Reading in a conspiracy certainly makes it more exciting, but i don't see it myself.

In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...

There are other devices that offer it. Combined, those devices have a much larger market share than the iPhone. Windows Mobile, Palm, Symbian, and Blackberry offer network streaming, not a crippled Wi-Fi only. Not every iPhone owner has a Slingbox anyway. So who cares if a small percentage of Sling owners want to use the network. We pay for it. Just like we paid for our iPhone and our AT&T service.

Don't give me this "the network can't handle it" bs. Don't believe the excuses. Apple and AT&T have another option for you to watch their Media, and Sling Media is not part of the equation. Unfortunately it will be another year or two before Apple offers streaming media to your iPhone. When they do, it will be extra (write quote down in your diary and refer back to it when I'm right).

I think this sends a pretty strong message to App developers. You either create novelty apps or you create nothing. Any app that actually has substance is usually rejected. Look at the current apps... games, social networking, and fart machines. Even the BABY SHAKER APP saw the light of day.

I get that your really mad about this, and none of the comments I made were directed at you in particular, just the general tone of slingbox supporters on this thread/site. So when I said that they were giving a big "f-You" to the rest of us on the network it was a general (but true) comment, not a specific stab at you.

It's also possible that slingboxers will get 3G access after iPhone OS 3.0 comes out which has better streaming video APIs or something I'm told. Or that, as I implied, AT&T might just be taking a cautious approach and testing the waters before allowing it to proceed. Despite what you say above, all cell providers test their usage patterns regularly for things like this, and why wouldn't they?

I just think people are freaking out over not much here. Slingbox went from zero availability to availability on Wi-FI. That's good, not bad.

People just like to complain IMO. They complain about AT&T when it's good or when it's bad, and constantly assume nefarious and illicit activity from Apple, Slingbox, AT&T or anyone else on pretty much zero evidence. There are even people complaining about the $30 price, when they already know that Slingbox prices all it's mobile clients at $30.

These attitudes are disingenuous and childish, and personally I just don't agree (that this is some huge issue or conspiracy or whatever.) All I see is two companies going very slowly and carefully ahead with their plans in a dull and plodding manner. Reading in a conspiracy certainly makes it more exciting, but i don't see it myself.

I hear but what you're saying but the issue goes beyond slingbox. I'm not some big slingbox nut. I'm an Apple nut and AT&T is screwing up my phone.

What happens when YouTube starts offering many TV shows and movies? What happens when there is a Hulu app? They've also blocked USTREAM over 3g. This is just the beginning. Streaming video will be very soon, if not already, an important part of a smartphones' experience. The smartphone is going to be a miniature laptop/desktop. If you can't stream video over data you payed for, then it is significantly flawed and useless.

So you can run around with your trendy iPhone which BTW lost is trendiness title like 6 months ago?
Why did you pay for bad connectivity and dropped calls in the first place? (refer to my first answer)

So you can run around with your trendy iPhone which BTW lost is trendiness title like 6 months ago?
Why did you pay for bad connectivity and dropped calls in the first place? (refer to my first answer)